The Trump Paradox

Dec 22, 2020 Eric Posner

For all of the irresponsible and reprehensible things outgoing US President Donald Trump said while in office, he could not have posed as great a threat to liberal democracy as many of his critics have supposed. Trump's entire political project has rested on a fundamental paradox that real authoritarian leaders know to avoid.

CHICAGO – As US President Donald Trump’s single term limps to an end, we should revisit a question that has dominated mainstream punditry for the past four years: Was America on the brink of an authoritarian takeover? Never before have so many commentators – including knowledgeable academics, seen-it-all-before political operatives, cynical journalists, and former government officials – argued as seriously that the United States was on the verge of a Weimar-style constitutional collapse. And yet, if Trump was an autocrat, he was a singularly ineffective one. When he wasn’t raging at the moon, he advanced his policies – most of them standard Republican fare – through constitutionally approved procedures.

Trump certainly provided ample material for books with titles like The People vs. Democracy: Why Our Freedom Is in Danger and How to Save It, Surviving Autocracy, and Trumpocalypse. From the start, he has lied relentlessly, expressed admiration for dictators, denigrated and threatened to jail his political opponents, disparaged judges and other public officials, vilified Muslims and foreigners, demonized journalists, and inflamed racial divisions. Even if some of his rhetoric was tongue-in-cheek or garbled, that hardly excuses him.

Trump also mixed his financial interests with government business, placed his children and son-in-law in positions of power, and frequently talked as if the government were his personal fiefdom. His presidency finally collapsed after his baseless claims of electoral fraud and spurious litigation efforts failed to gain traction.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to PS Digital

Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 8 Comments on this article

And Omar Feb 14, 2021

Re: "Trump stands out not so much for his actions as for his words." I think there's another explanation: the words used by the highly educated have diverged from the words used by other people. For example, Trump went golfing and left communication to others, while claiming there was widespread election fraud. I think most people without a college degree read this as "giving up fighting". It's only highly educated people that read this as insurrection. The very concept of insurrection only exists in the minds of the highly educated. It's similar to cheating, which highly educated bankers and lawyers do all the time. The idea of cheating does not occur to people without a college degree, who are decent and honest to a fault.

Re: "Real authoritarians, like Chinese President Xi Jinping, propagate an image of governmental excellence so that people will meekly submit to the police, courts, and regulators." If Corona has shown anything, it is that Chinese bureaucrats are highly competent. Countries that tried to imitate their lockdown made a joke of themselves. They made the US and Europe look like emperors who are only pretending to wear clothes.

Like others have commented, Chinese people do not think of their government as authoritarian. They think of their government as a slowly moving benevolent giant. Contrary to the Western stereotype, Chinese thrive on chaos, and they make fun of rules.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ronald Savitt Dec 24, 2020

All of this might be true, but I believe it is all too soon to make a judgement of this sort. There are events including his veto of bills, the possibility of some military action such as with Israel in Iran, and the time it takes for events to evolve.

It is all too easy to hope but hopes about what this president might be have not come to pass in the past 4 years. In the short run, the next three months there may be little response but what about the longer run? I believe that the sun will come in the east in the morning and will set in the west in the evening, a scientific fact. How people will react is much more volatile. You might be correct about "real authoritarian leaders" but I see the world full of those who might be able to work around what this president has tried to do. Finally, you discount the millions who voted for him in the election and the cadre of Republican politicians who really have not put their toes in the water.

I appreciate the desire to end one year and begin a new year with feelings of optimism and by the way I am not a diehard but a realist. Perhaps, you might sit back over the next few weeks and come back to this, certainly after Biden takes over. The next three weeks based on today's actions will be hell and provide important models for those waiting in the wings.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Lester Soss Dec 23, 2020

A more interesting question that Posner could have answered would be at what point does one Party use of "constitutionally approved procedures" end up with an outcome that violates the principles of the constitution. In other words, at what point does the system break.

One party control in extant democracies always first proceeds through constitutional means. Look at what has happened in Hungary, Poland, Russian, and Turkey.

He is right that Trump is simply following the program of the Republican Party. He is wrong to believe that program in any way corresponds to the ideals of the Founders.

A quick comment on the tone of the article. It is redolent of the criticisms that Hedge Fund managers often make of academic economists. They assume that because they have mastered a particular skill, of wheeling and dealing, that they now have a better understanding of the economy than anyone else. Or, the mandarin class in Imperial China, that was a self-referential group (not unlike lawyers) that believed that because they had mastered the Confuscius's Analect, they were well equipped to run the Chinese government.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
眼光 Canadian / China Dec 23, 2020

Trump is a white nationalist . He serves the gun lobbyist in USA and any white supremacy people in USA . He will be a menace to any new government in USA .
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Dec 23, 2020

Eric Posner says Trump had not posed a great threat to liberal democracy during his one term in office as critics anticipated. Fears of “America on the brink of an authoritarian takeover” that “knowledgeable academics, seen-it-all-before political operatives, cynical journalists, and former government officials” harboured, were overblown. That the US had not been “on the verge of a Weimar-style constitutional collapse,” has much the system of checks and balances to thank for.
The author says, “if Trump was an autocrat, he was a singularly ineffective one.” Congressional Republicans threw their weight behind him, because he advanced polices, like tax cuts and packing federal courts and the US Supreme Court with conservative judges that are “most of them standard Republican fare - through constitutionally approved procedures.” In return they turn a blind eye to his mendacity, fawning admiration for dictators. Despite demonisation and vilification of critics, Muslims, immigrants, racist rants and threats against journalists, “Trump has always been more bark than bite.”
As enablers of nepotism and plutocracy, Republicans see no problems that Trump mixed “his financial interests with government business, placed his children and son-in-law in positions of power, and frequently talked as if the government were his personal fiefdom. His presidency finally collapsed after his baseless claims of electoral fraud and spurious litigation efforts failed to gain traction.” Most Republicans remain silent, because they are simply afraid of falling out with him.
His character flaws, incompetence and “actions were morally wrong and politically irresponsible. But in terms of their impact, and of their role in the exercise or expansion of the president’s power, they seem relatively minor…. If Trump ruled as an autocrat and pushed the boundaries of his power, then so did every other president since Reagan. Yet none of those previous administrations came close to ending democracy in America.”
According to the author, Trump’s claims of election fraud had not resulted in judges, some of whom he appointed, and Republican election officials fixing the outcome for him. “His various calls to lock up his opponents could have encouraged ambitious Department of Justice lawyers or US Attorneys to launch investigations. They did not. Once judges, politicians, and other officeholders stopped heeding Trump’s words, he was helpless.”
No doubt, “the integrity of judges, government bureaucrats, the press, or Democratic (and a few Republican) elected official” is praiseworthy. But some of pro-Trump protesters were armed, when they swarmed government buildings, harassing and threatening officials they accused of “stealing” the election in Biden’s favour. Ten days ago members of the Electoral College in some states met at undisclosed locations to confirm Biden’s win, out of security concerns.
The author says Trump’s inconsistency may prove his undoing. “In 2016, he sought power by attacking the very government institutions that he would need to exercise power. As president, he kept up his attacks on the government that he headed, acting as his own opposition. This had two effects that undermined his position.”
First, Trump’s “own appointees – including judges and executive-branch officials – could not have felt much loyalty to a boss who was constantly undermining their status, power, and position. And indeed, many of them refused to do his bidding” - this includes the three Supreme Court justices ... “The FBI refused to heed Trump’s call for investigations of his political opponents. And the military refused to suppress protests. “ He realised his mistakes and drove some of them out of office - Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Attorney General William Barr, and others. They were replaced by loyalists.
Second, Trump “asked voters to believe that the government was incompetent, biased, and infiltrated by a “deep state,” while using that same government to expel undocumented aliens, suppress riots, wage a trade war with China, distribute pandemic aid, and hold elections. In fact, Republican politicians in Georgia, which will hold two Senate run-off elections on January 5, fear that Trump’s attacks on the electoral system will convince some supporters not to bother voting. Likewise, lack of trust in science or the health authorities, encouraged by Trump, may undermine his signature accomplishment – Operation Warp Speed, which resulted in the rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines.”
The sad thing about Trump’s voters is that they are gullible, without realising how bad he is. Although authoritarianism is not “impossible” in the US, and even if he is not as totalitarian as Xi Jinping, who praises the Communist Party and its form of governance, the possibility can not be ignored, given the number of votes Trump won. Luckily he has been voted out of office. Just imagine what the US would be like if he was reelected for another four years.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/XG1iPX4

The Trump Paradox

Subscribe to PS Digital

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Log in/Register

The Trump Paradox

Subscribe to PS Digital

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification